This week’s featured female blogger is Kathy at Random Thoughts. One of a growing coterie of female political bloggers (either they’re growing in number or we’re growing in the attention we pay to them, probably both), the truth is that Kathy’s thoughts are anything but ‘random’. Whether she’s keying on small facets of a large story–
I’m sad for Nancy Reagan and her family. I respect that they gave the country and the world a chance to say good-bye. I’m amazed that they had so little private time to say their own good-byes…
–or the hot center of a massive debate–
You have to wonder what made Sanchez believe that this treatment was legal, especially the “pride and ego down” which is the label used to cover actions designed to humiliate prisoners, and the withholding of religious items which contravenes the Geneva Conventions. Perhaps he thought it was legal because the administration said it was.
–Kathy’s pre-occupation is with the the anomalies in the pattern, the things that don’t add up, the deviations from a logical progression: hypocrisies, rationalizations, and excuses. She rarely attacks them so much as she questions their validity. Sometimes they seem to bemuse her; there’s a ‘Would any reasonable person really act like this?’ undertone in a lot of her posts. But at others, what she considers deliberate and aggressive distortions, she is less bemused than royally pissed off. Here she is on a recent Bill Kristol column in The Nation: after quoting Kristol writing that–
It’s not just that in Europe every leftist anti-American creep and every world-weary phony sophisticate wants and expects Bush to lose in November, and America to lose in Iraq. Surely the American people won’t give them the satisfaction of having their wishes granted.
I’m tired of bulls**t like this. We’re going to vote for Bush so that we don’t give European weenies the satisfaction? Yeah, I make my decision about who should hold the most powerful political office in the world by figuring out who I can spite. Kristol does follow up by saying that’s wishful thinking. But who would wish for this?
There’s a fine edge of righteous anger here that’s honed like a laser both on the weakness in Kristol’s argument and the elitism of his tone–a Kristol characteristic that too many miss too often; why haven’t more writers mentioned that? For all his fulminating against the ‘liberal elite’, Kristol is about as elite as they come. Any more ‘elite’ and he’d be a Bush or William F Buckley’s cousin.
She doesn’t show that level of anger very often. Most of the time you can feel her struggling to be reasonable while discussing the un-reasonable. It’s a tension that spices her writing in a subtle way that works as more obvious tactics–like mine, for example–don’t: even when you agree with her, you can’t just fall in line and parrot. You have to think first. It makes her an intriguing read.